Updated: July 25, 2020 (Initial publication: July 1, 2020)


🚧 Training, content and container of Compliance

by Marie-Anne Frison-Roche

ComplianceTech®. Pour lire ce document de travail en français, cliquer sur le drapeau français

This working document served as the basis for an article, contribution in the collective book Compliance Tools, 2020


Summary of this working paper:

Training is a specific Compliance tool and a dimension that each Compliance tool expresses. 

Firstly, as a training it is a specific Compliance Tool, it is supervised by Regulators. It even becomes compulsory when it is contained in Compliance programs. Since the effectivity and the efficiency are legal requirements, what is therefore the margin of companies to design it and how can we measure its result?

Secondly, as each Compliance Tool contains, more and more, an educational dimension, we can take back each of them to detect this perspective. Thus, even sanctions and prescriptions, are lessons: lessons given, lessons to follow. The question is then to know who, in this so pedagogic Compliance Law, are the "instructors"?





Training is akin to these things - and very precious - that we do, or even dream of doing, but so poorly expressed from the moment we take them as an object of technical writing. Just do it.

It would be however unfortunate to publish a book on Compliance Tools without giving a particular place to training, the piece would miss in the puzzle.

So much money spent by companies, by fair or foul means, especially when Compliance programs imposed as sanctions contain heavy training obligations leading people to retain word for word everything that is forbidden to them, in order to always abstain from now on. Training is thus the sharp point of such Hard Law appearing under the steel of Criminal Law's sword in amphitheaters and e-learnings. 

But also so much speeches about the necessity of a "Compliance culture" which should be instilled to firms, Compliance spousing with joy in an harmony with their "raison d'ĂŞtre" and the historical identity of this group of people which is the company itself through trainings which tell Compliance as a link, an outstretched hand toward those with whom managers want to renew a moral contract in an ethic for which they give the good example. It is not Prohibition anymore but Communication and Community that set the tone of a human dialogue with employees, stakeholders, administration and judges. 

It is possible to assume that the former does not exclude the latter, that Training should target all of this, the learning of mandatory prescriptions to follow without discussion but also the adhesion to guidelines, and this because everyone has understood that they are funded.

Everything and its contrary, then. "Learning by heart" takes here its full sense: get everyone to remember mechanically in order for no one to misstep (with always more machines which massively teach us the regulatory corpus on our mobile screens) but also succeed in bringing our "heart" in Compliance, thanks to specific training methods (with always smaller groups, with always less public discussions in pleasant places). Everything and its contrary, then.

It would be imperative but also sufficient to cumulate. Doing everything. Those who propose training softwares as those who organize conferences, meetings and travels and are favorable to this addition of face-to-face and distancing methods, of mechanic and of human relations. Concretely, at the end companies observe that since the first does not replace the second, costs add up. But, in Compliance, costs constitute a grave default of it, training taking a large part of this default. Managers end up finding the addition too heavy, especially if they thought that training of people is one of the public school's mission and not one of private companies' purpose!footnote-1837.

Moreover, training to Compliance is not outside Compliance Law, which makes it specific!footnote-1838. Indeed, Compliance Law, corpus of Ex Ante mechanisms, targets to concretize "monumental goals"!footnote-1836. Set by public authorities, these monumental goals are internalized in companies in order for them to implement expected means in order for them to be reached in the future. These monumental goals can be negative (that corruption, money laundering, human rights violations, financial system crisis, etc. shall not occur), or positive (that ecological equilibrium shall be restored, that education shall be supplied, that healthcare shall be provided, etc.).

Compliance Law takes as criteria of effectivity for implemented mechanisms, their reality, but also their efficiency, that is their ability to make sure their goal is achieved.Training must achieve its goal. Thus, in Compliance, the purpose is not only the one of every training, that is transmitting a knowledge in order to making the student more learned!footnote-1839, but it is to contribute to the "monumental goal" of Compliance Law itself, which is a practical goal and not a scholar goal. For example, training about the applicable rules concerning corruption should have an effect to reduce corruption. And because corruption is itself a part of Compliance Law, in the same way the Regulation Authority can force to educate oneself or train others, the Supervision Authority should control not only the reality but also the effectivity and the efficiency of trainings. 

However, the effectivity and the efficiency of Compliance training, because they are full part of Compliance Law, should be controlled by the Authority not only in their reality but also in their concrete ability to participate in the pursued goal. Thus, to keep the example of fight against corruption, training plays in it an essential role because the firm faces an alternative: either a mechanic solution consisting in setting literal interdictions, for example the interdiction to give up a value greater than a certain amount (according to the "anti-gift" rule) with the risk of getting around that every literal prescription offers, or a a solution by training consisting in explaining to everybody that it is wrong to corrupt but that it is acceptable to give samples. Training rather bets on spirit while the machine integrates the letter. 

But this refers to the Regulation and Supervision Authority which will appreciate the company due diligences to reach the goals. One observes that, more and more, Authorities economize one step: rather than explain to the companies how educate people that work for them or with them, regulators educate directly.  Is on this point remarkable the "guide" published in 2012, whose second edition of 2019 has been updated in 2020, jointly by the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the financial regulator (Securities &Exchanges Commission - SEC) to know everything about the Foreign Corruption Practices Act (FCPA). Through the explanations offered to everyone!footnote-1840 of the principles, the reminded definitions, the told cases, they are behaviors prescriptions which are formulated especially for foreign companies by the prosecutor authority and the American sanction authority, allied in this handbook which has such weight that we can consider that it is as valuable as a guideline, soft law creator of Law and rights. 

In the concentration of all powers which is often reproached to the Regulator, there is also the magisterium of the teacher, the one who educates stakeholders. After having assumed, on the American model, that the regulator should be the "advocate" of the rules for companies, proving to them the interest  that they have to respect them, it is logical that, in what some have called "Regulation, Act 2" this Regulator's pleading about the good news of Regulation for the firm justifying thus that this one integrates it in Ex Ante was prolonged in magistral lesson: the "regulator-institutor" explains to everybody how using rules for an always still in progress Law ("Better Regulation"). 

While training was before only peripheral, it is now at the heart. If it is so important, as every other "Compliance tool", it should take what we expect from it. The publications about training most often exhibit what it should be and a sorrowful spirit measures what sometimes appears as a huge gap between descriptions and realities sometimes reported. 

Educating being without any doubt one of the most difficult actions, we should probably neither describe a paradise of maieutics nor write a hot paper against what already has  the merit to exist, but list what we can expect from Training mechanisms when they apply to Compliance, because here, rather more than for the other tools, it is a mean obligation. Which content should have a training ? (I). Because Compliance Law targets training as one of the mean to reach "monumental goals" which constitutes the substantial heart of this branch of Law, the training dimension is not limited to stamped training, finding back this pedagogical dimension in almost all the other tools (II). In that, Training appears as the alpha and the omega of Compliance.




We remain eternal students and trainings are liike a travel in time offered by the firm, a mean to find back this happy time of scholarship, of comrades, of youth. Beyond this meeting moment, what can we expect from it?

It is the first question to ask because training being itself a Compliance Law's tool, as every Compliance mechanism it takes  its principle in the goal pursued. Before all, it is necessary to determine the purpose of a Compliance training (A). Once this is determined, the elements from which trainings are built appear more easily (B).  


Let's not take the general purposes of what is training, that is the education of the individual, its institution as citizen, its insertion in concentric circles group!footnote-1841, its access to knowledge of theoretical principles and to practical way of doing, because it is necessary to analyze the specific training to Compliance while its goals evoked just above are all pedagogical, which are present in Compliance teachings as in any other teaching, and will be not developed here. 

We always need to keep in mind that trainings on Compliances are themselves a part of Compliance Law in which they have for aim to help the firm reach "monumental goals" (1), to reinforce the institutional interlinking of Compliance Law (2) and to establish into the firm a probatory culture through which the company find its place in Compliance Law (3).


1. Helping the firm reach "monumental goals", principles of Compliance Law

Compliance Law assigns "monumental goals" to  the firm , for instance contributing to the fight against money laundering, or against corruption, or for the proactive protection of Nature.

With an appropriate training, under the control of the Supervision authority, the firm should  prove that it contributes effectively to it. It will do it through a technical learning that will permit the concretization of the goals. This implies a variety of trainings according to these goals. 

When the goals imply the active participation of each person in the firm, either negatively (for instance, "do not corrupt") or positively (for instance "inform an intern or extern authority of a case of harassment"), it is needed that the training should be of a behavioral kind: each person in the firm should be put in situation, through cases in order to learn to get the right reflexes. If they are only mechanical reflexes, the learning might be simply mechanical, a computer being a good tool. If it requires an appreciation of the situation (for example if the victim asks to not being protected), the learning should then be more collective and discussed. 

If the goals fall under the managers' decision making power, training changes itself because they are monumental goals themselves which should be instilled under the form of direct discussion with them, since they do not have nor the time nor the need to enter into the mastering of so much various regulations but that they should, on one hand, mastering what for their firm is constraint, even conduct it via the "raison d'ĂŞtre"  and the corporate social responsibility toward these same goals if they estimate that it is also in its interest (for example to fight against corruption or to lead active campaign for equality or the protection of oceans).

This mastering of goals by the comprehension that leaders have of it permits moreover to them to be "exemplar" ("from the top"), which links the two types of training (training of leaders and training for all): the speech of leaders on the "raison d'ĂŞtre" of Compliance becomes thus an element of training for everyone in the technical use of regulation, better enlightened by the understanding and the adhesion to the goals. 

Moreover, this training for the firm is not necessarily locked up in the firm: it should be inserted in the interlinking constituted by Compliance Law, which is therefore reinforced.


2. Reinforcing the interlinking on which is leaning Compliance Law

Monumental goals are not elaborated by the company but by public authorities, which target to eliminate corruption, money laundering, preserve the entire world from banking, financial, climate and sanitary crisis, to obtain protection of vulnerable human beings through the effectivity of their fundamental rights.

The firm is an instrument of its effectivity, under the control of a public supervisor, and its adhesion, potential and desirable, to such goals, is not a required condition.

It remains that the well-done internalization of these goals and the efficiency of the means implemented, for example the whistleblowing!footnote-1842 or risk mapping!footnote-1843 mechanisms, is still more "effective" if this internalization leads to what we could name an "impregnation". 

This impregnation operates through training, and it is the reason why sanctions, most often of an Ex Post nature, integrate in Compliance Law the most possible this Ex Ante function that is training!footnote-1844, because we always train for the future.

Since then trainings are especially well conceived for they insert the firm, as a set of people and articulation of various jobs, in the institutional and geographical  system on which Compliance Law leans himself!footnote-1845: interlinking , in the institutional interlinking between judges, prosecutors, regulation and supervision authorities, professionals of the control chain (auditor, attorney, etc., investors, consumers) an the geographical interlinking between local, national, European, Western world and other zones. 

Trainings can, through people's interventions, belong to this different meshes, make the firm more integrated to the interlinking on which leans the effectivity of Compliance Law, on which everything leans.

As such, the more the speakers will be diverse and distant, the more the training will be instructive for people: for example a discussion with someone in favor of FCPA having an active role in the application of it and an attorney advising the firm in a process of deferred-prosecution agreement with the French public procesutor. Because in an Ex Ante perspective, it is needed to learn how to behave adequately in the future and it is very useful to see different persons in different places.


3. Establishing a probatory culture through which the company find its place in Compliance Law

If it is true that Compliance Law, as Regulation Law, is situated in Ex Ante!footnote-1846, Compliance Law supposes that the firm proves permanently that it is structured in such a way that the goals set by public authorities are concretized and that people whose it is responsible have the appropriate behaviors in this sense.

The permanence of this obligation, always active, transcends the opposition between Ex Ante and Ex Post. This obligation to continuously taking into account is often designed with the specific term "accountability"!footnote-1847,  which designate thereby an "active duty" more than a classical liability. Moreover, in order for this active duty lo have a legal value, it is punished legally, and in strong manner that we know since, thanks to Criminal Law (which is an Ex Post Law), the legal system ensure that, cumulating it with Repressive Administrative Law, until constitutional courts set some limits.

It results from it an obligation of a radically new nature for firms: the probatory obligation.

Indeed, the firm must continuously prove that it implemented everything through its organization (structural obligation) and through everyone (behavioral obligation) to reach these monumental goals. If the fact that these goals are reached is only a mean obligation, on the contrary implementing structures and obtaining behaviors that tend to it is a result obligation!footnote-1848.

As far as it is relatively easy to prove that the structures have been implemented (for example the platforms of whistleblowing, even that trainings occured) it is harder to prove that they have been effective... However, "proving" is not only furnishing calendars of teachings and the proof of booked rooms, it is also proving that this training has produced its effect...

We understand that Regulators, which are keepers not of dead letter of the texts but of the effectivity of the system, ask that trainings pay off. But we also understand that companies which transmit invoices without obtaining the satisfecit of regulators do not know what to do anymore...

Firstly, to solve this, training should itself includ the proof of the effective people's follow-up (what could be numerically operated). Secondly, training should integrate as teachers people who are themselves in control authorities ; supervision penetrating thus more and more the firm.

Thirdly and in an essential way, training should itself have for aim to instill, in each person for which the firm is responsible, a "probatory culture". This means that in the simulated accomplishment during the training of such or such behavior (for example the opening of a bank account for a moral person whom it is necessary to control the identity!footnote-1849 or in the detection and the management of a potential conflict of interests), the person should learn to keep track of its approach. Indeed, if later the regulator, the prosecutor or the court demands accountability to the firm, it will not be on the finally made decision but on the good behavior which would have led to it. But it is to the firm to prove the existence of this good behavior, and the person should have kept the proof of its Compliance approach (for example a call to a third person, in particular to a Compliance officer).

This culture of proof preconstitution that training can instill is essential to protect the firm. It is specific to Compliance Law, in which Compliance Law even if it is an Ex Ante Law virtually puts the firm already face to its judge, integrating the due diligence proof preconstitution culture in everyone's daily life.



If the specific purposes of Compliance Law for which trainings should be led are clear, the elements which preside to their organization result from it. So, to determine who should prescribe them (1), who should be trained (2), who should train (3), what should we transmit (4) and how to train (5). This should lead to the measure of the result of so much effort (6).


1. Compliance trainings' prescribers

Because Compliance training is a full part of Compliance Law, texts, in a more or less "soft" way, often ask training about that. In more singular cases and with a more imperative mode, compliance programs imposed by sanctions or spontaneously taken, integrate training commitments. 

As by prophylaxis, in the U.S. the Department of Justice and the SEC strongly suggest that companies learn the Compliance constraints, especially by trainings. In a similar way the Agence française anticorruption -AFA (French Anticorruption Agency) targets training as an essential elements for an efficient fight against corruption

It is so a convergence between public authorities, and firms which targets the principle of a teaching and sometimes detail the trainings' dimension and the targeted public in the firm.


2. People trained to Compliance

We have until now reasoned as if training was integrated into the firm because it is analyzed as a "Compliance tool" and because it is in such a framework that it makes sense. Because they are continuous training, adressed to people who work and have little time and who have already been confronted with Compliance issues, rather under the perspective of difficulties, for example through controls, or even sanctions!footnote-1882, it is most often people who are the most "exposed" to Compliance in the company, that is to the Ex Post of Compliance.

We are thus confronted to a paradox: while Compliance Law is characterized by its Ex Ante nature, the natural tendancy is to teach it to people who are the most sensitive to sanction, which often leads to focus training on sanctions, for example the French law called "Sapin 2" and the repressive part of it, which is the aim of countless trainings, while teachings corresponding more to the Ex Ante spirit of Compliance, as consumer information or environment protection, are far less numerous. 

Thereby, by a shock return, the way Compliance Law is taught, before all through Criminal Law, through continuously told cases, most often dramatically (BNP or Alstom cases)  influences the evolution of Compliance Law itself, maintained in what could however be its own failure: sanctions. 

Otherwise, we have been observing for the last few years, in many countries, in many universities, even in business schools, the implementation of masters or university degrees of "Compliance". They are rattached to the mother-discipline which is Law, Management, Economics and often mention in their title "Ethics" (which does not exist as a mother-discipline in higher education structures).

Therefore, it is students who choose in their "initial" training to learn what is Compliance. Their aim is perhaps to become scholars but above all to find a job in a sector where supply is abundant. 

We observe that the goal of training is not the same because it is about getting a technical mastering of the matter, without any doubt in order to becoming Compliance Officer, and thus expert.

But Compliance Law is only emerging!footnote-1850. It just begins to constitute an autonomous branch of Law, going beyond Criminal Law and novelties observed in Competition Law, Corporate Law, Personal Data Law. This emerging state makes it for the moment difficult to be perceived and even more difficult to be restituted and therefore to be taught, because Compliance Law is not the addition of all of these "sectoral Compliance Laws"!footnote-1852.

It results from it that its teaching is, for the time being, in some way "blocked" in "more prestigious branches of Law" than itself, either Criminal Law, privileged for reasons seen before and depending to the kind of people attending trainings, or Corporate Law, etc. The way Compliance is taught is paradoxically a brake to the constitution of the discipline because it results from it that everybody thinks that he or she practices it as a whole while only a part of the pertinent rules have been taught.

Let's take an example: people in charge of protecting personal data in firms will learn the entire GDPR and will estimate having been trained to all Compliance Law, while people in charge of fighting against money laundering will learn everything about FCPA and will estimate having been trained to all Compliance Law too. The former and the latter will have a certificate, perhaps displaying the same mention attesting the mastering of the matter, while they  will not have learned the same thing ; the DPO knowing nothing about the rules permitting to fight against embargos, while the one who is monitoring international financial flows will not study the legal question of hate speeches in digital space. The use of acronyms in each sector increases this segmentation that training rises instead of reducing it. 

What is a gap with regard to Compliance Law will not be felt as such by people because they do not meet, everyone using obvious bases in their circle, non understandable outside of it. In that, continuous training contributes to what is legitimately denounced: the silo expertise that is Compliance and is aggravating.

The constitution of a Compliance Law which doesn't make do with being only an efficiency method of such and such branch of Law but goes beyond to be able to find a substantial and specific definition, is thus an imperative which is served by training and which not only must adress to everyone in the firm but also invite to a common culture. Training does not only consist in deepening what we already know, which segments Compliance Law and hindrance its constitution as branch of Law. Training does not only consist in teaching sanctions in a critical way, which houses Compliance Law in Ex Post while it is, first of all, Ex Ante.

For that, it is necessary to teach it in a global way to everyone in a continuous training and autonomously in an initial training. For the moment few examples are found. 


3. The teachers

As for Compliance whose we measure the progression each year, training in itself now constitutes a "market". Because training is a part of Compliance, it also constitutes a part of this market. It follows its expansion. Because there is demand, there is therefore supply. It is then logical that everyone say good about training, because everyone could potentially be a teacher. 

Media echo, with delectation: we can for instance read "Le marchĂ© mondial des Formations sur la conformitĂ© d’entreprise 2020 connaĂ®tra une croissance Ă©norme d’ici 2026" (our translation: Compliance Training world market 2020 will know an enormous expansion until 2026). Gourmandinet!footnote-1866 in Compliance land and everyone see themselves in the role of Compliance teacher. 

This is true because it is needed to benefit from more able people to explain all of this for people who must understand behaviors that they could not have (for instances, pollute or harass) and why they cannot have them (incurred sanctions, the non-legal - for example moral - justifying abstention) as well as behaviors they must have (protecting people's rights, acting for ecological equilibrium, denouncing violations, transmitting information, using efficient legal or non-legal means ).

This means that the most appropriate teachers are not limited to university world, even if the mastering of what we often call the pedagogical ability whose high education teachers, certified by a degree and seasoned by teaching practice, are the most likely to provide a general, clear and simple vision of the discipline. And more a discipline is designated as "complex", qualification which is often used about Compliance..., and more the teacher should be simple in its restitution. 

But this cannot be sufficient. Thus, the auditor is the most able to explain the a priori control of information, while the attorney is the most able to explain the appropriate behaviors in order not to be exposed to sanction processes. 

Moreover, because there is a continuum between Ex Ante and Ex Post, the most appropriate teachers are without any doubt people toward which everyone in the firm can turn about Compliance issues, especially Regulation and Supervision Authorities members, Prosecutors and judges. Not only from the geographical areas from which he or she belongs but from other geographical areas, because the extraterritorial effect of legal Compliance rules is acquired!footnote-1853.

As such, it is necessary to understand American rules, not only because the jet of their mechanism carries everywhere but also because their spirit is now present everywhere, as each commentator of the French law "Sapin 2" underlines it. This is why teachers mastering American Law are so welcome. But it is still important to make understand what is for instance Chinese Compliance Law, probably very different form Western Law. A teacher knowing it could do that. In a discipline which, more than any other, marries culture and letter!footnote-1883 ; this is essential.


4. The subjects taught for Compliance

How it is difficult to know what to teach when we teach Compliance...

Probably some Law, because there are some much laws, decrees, circular orders, guidelines, judgments, contracts, commitments, charts. In this variety of legal acts and facts, corresponding either to hard law or to soft law, we will cross Criminal Law as well as Civil Law, Public Law, Business Law, International Law, Fiscal Law, Corporate Law, Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Contract Law, Tort Law, Labour Law, Arbitration Law, Human Rights, Criminal Procedure, Administrative Litigation. If we are more modern in the pedagogical segmentation of disciplines, we should teach Process Law, Financial Law, Data Law, Enforcement Law.

But if only there were only Law to teach...

If we admit that Compliance is also a "culture" to instill in order to share it better!footnote-1855, it is then also necessary to teach Finance, Ethics, Management, International Relations, and even Behavioral Sciences (and why not for example Body Language). 

We are therefore confronted to a major difficulty to design Compliance training: should we be in initial training or in continuous training, how can we teach all this? This is even less conceivable in continuous training because people, on one hand, do not have available time for this and in another hand have already acquired knowledge even if its varies according to firms, services and people.

How shall we do it ?

Without any doubt it is necessary to design training which do not pretend to teach everything. It is possible to reinforce the knowledge of targeted people, or, on the contrary, open the door for them (without pretending to expertise) towards Compliance's dimensions that they ignore. It is the reason why there are no subjects imposed: it is necessary to start with analyzing people targeted by the training!footnote-1856 and design the teaching of the chosen subjects with the training prescribers!footnote-1857, choosing consequently in a third time the appropriate kind of teaching.


5. Compliance teaching methods

In the same way, the variety of the available teaching methods permits to adjust them to the public and to the objectives, because there are no training methods superior to others.

Thus, the mechanical methods as e-learning are appropriate and relatively costless to teach the basics and speak as well to a large public and in a particular way, everyone activating as he or she wishes features in the software, while the machine permits to control attendance. This control dear to the hierarchy is often only illusory because it is even more easier to cheat with a machine than a teacher. 

Moroever if the current stake is to share a culture, the machine is without any doubt a poor tool to do it. The control of the effectivity of the culture of Compliance transmission is also hazardous.

Training costs weighing in the total invoice of every Compliance costs, this mechanization training finds its principal interest in a less important invoice, because a robot is never tired and the mechanical voice, softened by technological progress, soon cuddling, will be able to repeat continuously and in multiple languages the rule to remember.

If we consider more seriously what is training with regard to Compliance Law, training being an element of Compliance Law that we would consider seriously. Firstly the exemplarity of Compliance on which we often insist!footnote-1858 implies that there is a training through exemplarity taking the shape of speeches by top managers themselves, from the company (and if it is the case it is a commitment) or from other companies. 

Second, training has vocation to be done quickly and in a segmented way because it is probably not necessary to let people far from practice for too long but it is rather useful to design short and renewed sessions with direct discussions with teachers!footnote-1859. The brief nature of this sessions permits to have high level teachers in responsibility, which is more instructive for people who listen to them, because such teachers have few available time.

6. Compliance Training Measure

Classically, the measure of a training takes the shape of a certification!footnote-1860. The multiplication of masters in many different mother-disciplines!footnote-1861, succeed in this, which give people attending a measure thanks to the certification that is given to them.

Companies, even administrations, now send, in the United States even more than in Europe, their employees in trainings, which soften the distinction between initial and continuous training!footnote-1862.

But diplomas are measures that are more and more controversial, in the sociological, psychological and economical sense. If some say Compliance is before all a question of culture and ethics, it may be true but it is difficult then to praise the power of a diploma in the matter.

The measure of the effective success linked to trainings is without any doubt in the control operated by the Regulator. Because Compliance tools should be "effective" and that this effectivity is controlled by the Regulator itself!footnote-1867, it is then role of the Regulator to control the effectivity and the efficiency of these trainings. The Regulator does it when he punishes the absence of training or their absence of scope. Doing that, he gives the measure, certifying such or such training.

But if training is a Compliance tool among others, this does not mean that there is training only in the obvious sense of the term: in every Compliance tool, the educative dimension emerges. And more and more.



This educative dimension emerges as well as in risk mapping (A), intern control processes (B) and normative production (C).



Risk mapping is often presented as the first Compliance tool!footnote-1868, because in primary condition, it is needed to recognize risks to organize in Ex Ante the different ways to avoid them. It is the reason why the Regulator itself establishes to the benefit of everybody a risk mapping, for example the risk mapping elaborated each year by the AutoritĂ© des marchĂ©s financiers - AMF (French Financial Regulation Authority)!footnote-1870, in order for operators to pick up pertinent information to then create their own risk mapping!footnote-1869.

The two actors, Regulator and Operator, do not establish a risk mapping for the same reason. The operator establishes it to lead its business and well master its risks, making the right management decisions. The regulator not being a business decision-maker, and the principle rule of distinction between operator and regulator implying it strongly, does not target this when he establishes a risk mapping. He thus has another objective: he wants to enlighten the market and investors in their risk taking. 

One can so say that the Regulator trains but not the operator, who has already a lot of things to do by better establishing this mapping, without lecturing or helping others understand the future world....

But on the contrary, with a kind of reflex effect, when the operator establishes such a mapping, investors inflect their future behaviors, because of the information that it contains!footnote-1871. As case law punishing the operator who has badly operated this mapping shows it, this corresponds to a kind of "right  to third parties to be alerted of the risks".

Mapping is therefore the objective element which can be articulate to the character of the whistleblower. It is the way by which each operator is in charge of educating stakeholders in the use of risks, not in order for them not to take them - because Compliance Law is articulated in a liberal conception of economy - but in order for them to take risks if they want, being informed. 



Control processes are essential concerning Compliance!footnote-1872. They confer a reality to the firm and to the moral person compared to corporate officers and to managers, because they postulate that the firm controls actions which it knows nothing about and which can have been be harmful to it, led by people who structurally express its willingness. 

Schizophrenia touches by nature control processes. In this chess game where the same person plays the black and white pieces, where the leader interrogates and is interrogated, as in burlesque films, where the character does not stop to stand up to go sit in the empty chair in front of him or her, how understand this duplication?

Admitting that doing that the firm educates itself. By constraining itself, especially because the moral person's attorney represented by the corporate officer will not be the same than the attorney of this corporate officer!footnote-1873, the firm is talking to itself. Many people explain that the sole interest of such a heavy Law that is Compliance is to enable people in big companies to speak and get to know each other.

Thus, intern controls often take the path of discussions, explanations, dissipations, misunderstandings,departments which finally come out to talk to other departments!footnote-1874.  

Internal controls can be akin to police investigations or instructions but also, particularly if they cease to be the exception or become more common, are akin to a pedagogy of respect of the law and respect of others through discussion!footnote-1875.

This maieutic training expressed by internal control is due in particular to the fact that many Compliance faults or errors are due to the isolation of the person who caused the violation and that if he or she would have spoken about it then the violation would not have happened.



It is often asserted that Compliance must be practiced through example!footnote-1876, and that this example must come "from the top" ; the leader should not only evoke in the most solemn and engaging circumstances the need for Compliance but also show that he complies with it himself: pedagogy by authority ("do it since I am the president"), pedagogical by example ("do it since I do it myself").

The "charters" of companies are now often entitled "code of conduct" and detail the way in which each one must behave. As in a manual, sometimes with drawings to make it easier to understand, the group's holding company explains to everyone, through one or two very simple cases, what to do: through this document the company communicates to the markets, in an educational process aimed at getting everyone to understand why the regulations must be respected. For example to save the oceans or to respect the people with whom we are in contact.

The most remarkable is the approach of the Regulators. They publish books that explain, as well as classroom teachers would do, the rules, sources, cases, examples, issues, etc. In short, the Regulators now give lessons in Compliance.

For instance, the Resource Guide published by the US Department of Justice and the SEC, the subjet is to explain Compliance Law applied to the fight against corruption. By the way, the Prosecution Authority that is the DoJ and the Sanction Authority that is the SEC assert their institutional doctrine, the document also constituting Soft Law.

Gunther Teubner feared that companies would become the new "Constituents" of a globalized world!footnote-1877. By reading such documents we can see that the public authorities, by lecturing us on what is and should be Compliance Law!footnote-1881, repeat once again that they are the masters of it, for it is the same lesson that the company will find in the decision of the Regulator, a sort of copy in which only the Regulator and then the judge have the power to affix the note.

From this final examination of continuing education, no one will be able to exclude companies, because companies are subjects of Compliance Law.



Frison-Roche, M.-A., Risk mapping, center of Compliance Law, 2019. 


See below


For the description of this interlinking, see Frison-Roche, M.-A.,The Contribution of Compliance in Internet Governance, 2019.


On both notions, see in the Compliance and Regulation Law bilingual dictionnary, the entry "Responsibility". 


On this question itself probative of the control of the reality of people, through the notion of "real beneficiary", see Frison-Roche, M.-A., Compliance and Personnality, 2019. 


On the notion of "Audit of Compliance", which is made without consideration of control or sanction, s. Gutierrez-Crespin, A. L'audit du dispositif de compliance : un outil clé pour en vérifier la robustesse, 2020. 


On this emergence, see Frison-Roche, M.-A., Les principes du Droit de la Compliance, published soon. 


For a developed demonstration of this point, see Frison-Roche, M.-A., The Dreamed Compliance Law, 2020. 


Read an analysis of this character in Madame de Ségur's tale, Blondine.  Read or listen the tale itself, illustrated by Gustave Doré, because we always gain to read this great author. 


See above. 


On the people for whom the training is intended, see above.


On training prescribers, see above.


On the exemplary nature of Compliance when it is treated as a virtue, see Canto, M. La Compliance et les définitions traditionnelles de la vertu, 2019.


On teachers, see above.


On the "diploma" as a sign of the "binary code" of the "learned world", see Thevenot, L. et Boltansky, De la justification : les économies de la grandeur, 1991.


On the different parent disciplines to which Compliance is attached and the consequences in the training tree, see above.


On the important effect of this distinction between initial training and continuing training, see above.


Galland, M., La mesure de l'efficacité de la Compliance, 2020. 


Sarrat de Tramezaigues, G., La cartographie des risques : analyse économique, 2020. 


See for instance Autorité des marchés financiers, Cartographie des tendances et des risques, juin 2020. 


About the question to know if such a mapping elaborated by the Regulator and published by it constitutes or not a normative act, see below


On this case law, see Frison-Roche, M.-A., Legal theory of Risk mapping, center of Compliance Law, 2019. 


Grandjean-, J.-P., Les procédures de contrôle interne, 2020. 


On the role of the lawyer in Compliance Law, see. the dossier Dalloz Avocat on "Avocat et Compliance", 2020.


On the benefit of teachers who come from other departments, other businesses, other horizons, see above.


On training through maieutics, particularly in legal and ethical matters, because of "the ethics of discussion", see. for example, Frison-Roche, M.-A., Le modèle perelmanien au regard des méthodes d'enseignement du Droit, 2012.


For example when the public Authorities explain the meaning of their decision and especially explain the meaning of the decisions of others, in particular judgments. Adopting a perspective of norms hierarchy, insofar as firstly these educational explanatory acts are issued for the benefit of companies, or even the population, for which they could constitute Soft Law, secondly any presentation of a decision contains an element of interpretation, thirdly any interpretation is itself normative, what is the mandatory force of this act ?

If the Court it is above or over there  the Regulatory Authority it may not take it into account this presentation of its own decision. But what happens if a third party invokes before this Court, or before another Court an educational act of the Regulator having explained to him the meaning of a judgment thereof? Can the "legitimate belief" or "appearance" theory work, having created rights?

Let's take an example. The meaning, value and scope of the decision rendered on July 16, 2020 by the Court of Justice of the European Union, known as "Schrems II", seemed all the more uncertain as it concerns everyone, even small businesses, as well as ordinary Internet users (of them Maximilien Schrems is the herald). "meaning, value, scope" is the traditional construction of a case law commentary. After a public reading of the decision by its President , the European Court of Justice issued a statement. At the same time, the association created by Maximilien Schrems published on its site a series of comments on the meaning, value and scope of the decision. At the same time, the national and European regulatory authorities carried out the same educational exercise. Thus the European Data Protection Board published on July 23, 2020 a document entitled "Frequently asked questions about the judgment ...". This title indicates more questions than answers, but there is mention of an "adoption" of the document by this agency, which gives it an official character. More generally, in responses there is always opinions expressed. What is the scope of such a "case law comment" by an "agency" whose normative power is vague? When the judgment commentary emanates from bodies with more binding legal powers but which are at national level, what is its effect? If everyone's comments diverge, what happens? By the way, what remains of academic doctrine ...

(on the link between pedagogy, the University and "institutional doctrine" in regulatory mechanisms, see more generally, Frison-Roche, M.-A., Les décisions des juges et des régulateurs favorisent-elles la compétitivité des entreprises françaises (Do the decisions of judges and regulators promote competitiveness? of French companies?), 2014).

comments are disabled for this article